Southern Poverty Law Center Wants to Erase Southern History

SPLC Proclaims War of Total Eradication Against Southern Heritage

The totalitarian jihad against all things distinctively Southern, most particularly the flag generally seen as representing the South, has not yet gone far enough to please the cultural Marxist Jacobins of the SPLC: While many flags and other symbols are being taken down across the country, incredibly, many Southern states still honor Confederate “heroes” with paid holidays, and Confederate flags still fly in many public places and are emblazoned on city and state seals. In fact, there are still statues, buildings and even a state park honoring [Confederate General] Nathan Bedford Forrest…

Throughout the South, proud symbols of Southern heritage have been vandalized by lowlifes of the Black Lives Matter stripe and their sympathizers. Since the vandals may lack the smarts to locate symbols of the South to deface, desecrate, and destroy, SPLC steps forward to help: The SPLC is creating an interactive, online map of sites throughout the United States that honor the Confederacy or its leaders – people such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Attention liberals: Even if you have too much to lose smash a statue, spray-paint a monument, or dig up a grave yourself, you can enable the enablers: To help us, please use our online form below to send the Confederate names and symbols on public property in your town, and send us a photograph if possible. By all means feel free to send them photographs. Only nice ones of course. We’re looking for Confederate statues or monuments; flags; government seals; patches on government uniforms; the names of parks, streets, schools, military bases or counties; school mascots; and other examples.

As part of the “Erasing Hate” campaign, we’re also preparing a community action guide to help local communities reach consensus on removing publicly supported symbols that represent the slave-holding South. That is, all references to the antebellum South must be force-marched down the memory hole. SPLC stands for Southern Poverty Law Center. If they get carried away any further, they will be agitating for people to vandalize their own offices or legislate a ban on their own organization. The progressive plan is to destroy history itself. On a tip from seaoh. Hat tip: Council of Conservative Citizens.

See more at: http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.KjVG4jbD.dpuf

confederate_flag_erased

Black Lives Matter. Really? Tell that to the Perpetrators of Black Crime.

Blacks crush blacks

 

SAY WHAT?????
How the distribution of perpetrators of violent crimes perpetrated against blacks would look in a perfectly diverse, multicultural utopia:

How a naif might think the distribution looks based on the perpetual cherry picking and gross omissions served up by the major media:

Piggybacking on the 2012-2013 NCVS numbers crunched by Heather Mac Donald, how the perpetrator distribution against black victims of non-homicidal violent crime actually looks:

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this is a handy one to pull out of a back pocket every time a SWPL or race hustler yammers on about how some individual case of white-on-black violence serves as a microcosm of American society as a whole (while ignoring the 27 instances of black-on-white violence that occur for each single case of white-on-black violence).

Just 1-in-10 black victims suffer at the hands of non-Hispanic white perpetrators of violence. This even though whites comprise a majority of the population.

Proximity, of course, plays a substantial role in shaping the distribution. The Obama administration’s drive to push NAMs out of the inner cities and into white suburbs will, as one of its many aftereffects, lead to an increase in interracial violence. As a consequence, a few more blacks will suffer at the hands of whites and a lot more whites will suffer at the hands of blacks. Diversity + Proximity = War.

Still, if #blacklivesmatter, it seems curiously ineffective and inefficient to focus almost exclusively on a small minority of cases in which blacks suffer if the objective is to reduce said suffering.

Whites are, in fact, less likely to perpetrate acts of violence against any of the groups measured–whites, blacks, Hispanics, or others–than their numbers alone would predict under the (flawed) assumption that propensity for criminal violence is distributed evenly across racial groups.

Blacks, on the other hand, at 13.2% of the population, are more likely to perpetrate acts of violence against members of all other groups than would be predicted under an egalitarian assumption based on their share of the population alone.

Today, the Confederate Flag, Tomorrow, Who Knows Where the Hysteria will Lead…

Don’t Let Dylann Roof and the SPLC Define the Confederate Flag

I am going to go against what seems to be the wave of public opinion, including that of prominent Republicans, by urging South Carolina to keep the Confederate flag.  I also encourage people to circumvent Amazon.com’s and eBay’s bans on Confederate flag merchandise by looking for alternate distribution channels.  Let somebody other than Amazon and eBay collect the commissions on the sales.

The reason is simple: if we go along with repudiation of the Confederate flag, then (alleged until proven guilty) murderer Dylann Roof wins.  We will have allowed him and the Ku Klux Klan on one side, and race hustlers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Al Sharpton on the other, to hand the Confederate flag over to white supremacists to use as their symbol.  There is even conversation about removing the names of Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee from Army bases.  Al Sharpton, of course, supports this agenda, even though he, unlike General Lee, was at least partially responsible for two incidents of racist violence (Crown Heights and Freddy’s Fashion Mart).

Robert E. Lee never participated in, much less led, a KKK rally around a black-owned store in a Caucasian neighborhood.  He therefore compares very favorably to Al Sharpton, who personally called the owner of Freddy’s Fashion Mart a “white interloper” while his followers threatened to set fire to the store, and one finally did.  Come to think of it, it would be instructive to determine whether Lee ever used the N-word (even when it was socially acceptable) in contrast to Al Sharpton, who applied it to New York mayor David Dinkins.  Sharpton has also often used colorful language for white people in general and Jews in particular.

General Lee’s distaste for slavery was meanwhile comparable to Abraham Lincoln’s.  “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”  Lee, however, became a role model for character and integrity when he declined command of the Union Army to serve in an initially subordinate position in the Confederate Army.

The Confederate Flag Is Not about Slavery

I don’t know how many thousands of slaves were imported under the Stars and Stripes, but the number imported under the Stars and Bars comes to roughly zero.  Prior to the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, the Baltimore (as in Yankee rather than Confederate) clipper ship played a major role in slave transportation.  Even as late as 1849, Baltimore-built clippers played an active role in the slave trade under foreign flags.  “In 1849 reports surfaced indicating that a Baltimore clipper had cleared $400,000 from eleven slave-trading voyages over a four-year period.”

This little piece of history, by the way, proves the blatant double standards of those agitating for removal of the Confederate flag.  “Baltimore Clippers” was the name of a hockey team and a basketball team in Baltimore, a solid blue (Obama Democrat) municipality. A reasonable person would acknowledge this as a symbol of pride in the city’s shipbuilding history, but it could also be construed as glorification of the city’s role in the slave trade.

Don’t Revise History

If we allow Dylann Roof, the KKK, Al Sharpton, and the SPLC to define the Confederate flag as a racist hate symbol, we are also tolerating revisionist history to the effect that the Civil War was about slavery.  While the issue of slavery was certainly divisive, the war’s primary cause was economic.  Men who had to march barefoot because they could not afford boots did not own slaves, and they were far more likely kept out of paying work by the institution of slavery.  They would have no more fought to defend the right of a few percent of the South’s population to own slaves than today’s working class would fight to defend the right of corporations to ship jobs offshore for cheap labor.

In addition, the Underground Railroad could have never operated without complicity by Southerners who were willing to look the other way while slaves escaped.  Many Northern workers meanwhile supported slavery because they were afraid that emancipated blacks would take their jobs.  There was plenty of right and wrong on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The industrialized North could abolish slavery for the same reason the United Kingdom abolished it.  Mechanization and productivity make slavery uneconomical, just as Henry Ford proved later that mechanization and productivity make low-wage labor uneconomical.  Northern factory owners, however, agitated for tariffs on the goods that the South imported from the United Kingdom in exchange for cotton.  This was simply another version of a major cause of the War of Independence; the United Kingdom would not let its colonies manufacture anything, and forced them instead to trade raw materials for finished goods.  If we look at the principal and immediate cause of the Civil War from the perspective of the Founding Fathers, therefore, the Confederacy was in the right.  The Confederacy was of course wrong about slavery, but slavery persisted the longest in the states that remained loyal to the Union.

Only after the war began did Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which British cartoonist John Tenniel dismissed as a political ploy in which Abraham Lincoln plays an “Ace of Spades” against Jefferson Davis.  The Emancipation Proclamation must therefore be viewed as doing the right thing (abolishing slavery) for the wrong reason (as a weapon against the South rather than against the inherent wrongness of slavery).  It meanwhile exempted every single slave-owning state such as Maryland (the home of the Baltimore slave ship), Delaware, and West Virginia.  Slavery remained legal in those jurisdictions until 1865.

This brings us to the next issue.

If the Confederate Flag Is a Hate Symbol, so Are the Penny and Five-Dollar Bill

History quiz #3: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”  Who said it?

  • Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the Ku Klux Klan)
  • Simon Legree (in Uncle Tom’s Cabin)
  • Jefferson Davis
  • Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debate)
  • Robert E. Lee
  • Stonewall Jackson
  • David Duke (Ku Klux Klan)

The quote is straight from the Great Emancipator, whose name is on many public schools in black neighborhoods.  Lincoln was admittedly ahead of his time because he did not believe that the “white race’s” purported superiority over black people went so far as to entitle white people to own black people, but he was not ahead of his anti-slavery contemporaries like Robert E. Lee.  Should we therefore remove Lincoln’s portrait from the penny and the five-dollar bill?

Let’s first consider, though, the proposition that somebody’s use of anything as a hate symbol makes it a hate symbol.

What Is a Hate Symbol?

The Ku Klux Klan often marches with the Confederate flag.  A group of Confederate reenactors once turned up at such an event with their own Confederate flag and, as soon as the Klansmen got close enough, turned as a single man to show the Kluxers their backs.  The Confederate flag obviously has a very different meaning to each of the two groups.

The fact that the Phelps family and Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama’s pastor) preach hatred from behind the Christian cross, and the fact that the Klan burns crosses, does not mean that the cross represents hate.  If the person burning the cross is wearing a kilt rather than a sheet and hood, in fact, he probably has nothing against black people, although, in the bad old days, he might have had something against a rival clan (that’s clan with a c and not a k).

Are sheets and hoods hate symbols?  It depends again on the context in which they are displayed.  These Spanish Penitentes (Holy Week penitents) hide their faces not because they have any intention of threatening or harming black people, but because they believe that public religious devotion should be anonymous.

The swastika is obviously a hate symbol, but only if one believes that pre-Columbian Native Americans as well as ancient Indo-Europeans were Nazis.  I saw a swastika petroglyph in Nevada, and I doubt that the people who drew it ever heiled anybody or anything but the Great Spirit.  ProSwastika.org argues quite persuasively, “By associating the swastika with the Nazis, we only give credit to the monstrosities of this horrible regime.”  In other words, the world allowed the Nazis to define the swastika at the expense of hundreds of millions of people around the world who used it long before anybody ever heard of a Nazi, and to whom its meaning is contrary to everything the Nazis represent.  Hitler, at least to the extent of stigmatizing Native American, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Tibetan, etc. swastikas in this manner, therefore won that part of the Second World War even though he lost the rest.


Nazi Native Americans?  Not in 1909.

The Confederate Flag and the Right of Self-Defense

The states of the former Confederacy, unlike many Union strongholds like New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, believe that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says rather than what the likes of Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama want it to mean.  It means that people of all races have an inherent right to possess weapons for defense of home, family, and country.  The fact that Roof allegedly used a weapon with a seven-round New York SAFE Act-compliant magazine saved none of his unarmed victims, as he was able to reload several times.

What would have saved them would have been a controlled pair to Roof’s thoracic cavity followed by another to his head if he was still standing with a weapon in his hand.  This is a solution that blacks who might be afraid to go to church because of racist threats, and Jews who might be afraid to go to a synagogue because of Islamist terrorists, ought to consider.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/dont_let_dylann_roof_and_the_splc_define_the_confederate_flag.html#ixzz3eSFrxgv0

 

Liberals Riot like it’s 1955. We are Entering the Blind Ages.

The Progressive Timeline

A topic of interest amongst many crime-thinkers, as well as some mainstream writers who secretly read crime-thinkers for column material, is why Progressives can never come to terms with the fact that they have been in charge of most of society for generations. It’s as if they have been asleep for the last fifty years or were taught an alternative history.

Detroit collapses in on itself and Progressive are out in the streets protesting as if the city was run by a secret cabal of Free Masons. They demand change and the implementation of their preferred solutions. Left out is the fact they were the ones in charge for fifty odd years and they had implemented all of their preferred polices, causing the collapse.

Race is the most obvious big social issue which has been totally controlled by Progressives. Since the 1950’s, the Left has had a free hand in trying tonmake the races get along. They even control the definition of “getting along.” Despite this, the last few years has been a non-stop campaign to “fix” race, as well as a cynical effort to cause a race war.

After the church shooting, every member of the Cult was out in the streets claiming nothing has changed since the last time a white guy killed a bunch of black people, which was fifty years ago. Normal people would look at the near total absence of white on black crime in the South, relative to the bad old days, as an amazing development. To the Left, this has not happened and it is still 1955.

My theory for why Progressives have a folded timeline is that their religion is synchronic versus diachronic and it is emotional. The Western tradition, informed by the Catholic scholarly traditions, is diachronic and dispassionate. History is a series of events, each influencing the other. The French Revolution, for example, led to Napoleon, the latter being the result of the former.

The Progressive sense of history is synchronic and emotional. The Civil Rights Movement has enormous emotional resonance with the left so it is of constant interest and talked about as if it happened yesterday. On the other hand, the near total domination of America urban centers by Progressive politicians has no emotional resonance so may as well have happened ten thousand years ago or not at all.

This jumps out when talking with millennials, who have been marinated in the New Religion throughout their schooling. Even those who ostensibly reject the one true faith have this emotional timeline baked into their thinking. They divide the past into two parts. There are those events that happened a long time ago before they were around and those events that happened in their time, which are all consuming.

For instance, I recently was talking with a millennial about mobile phones. He made the comment that life must have been rough before Steve Jobs invented the iPhone. He just assumed that this thing important to him, was a seminal moment in history. When I explained to him that I had a mobile phone in the 1980’s, I may as well have told him I lived in the age of dragons. He was incredulous.

I think this explains the current moral panic over the Confederate flag. In the Progressive timeline, the Civil War looms large, casting a shadow over everything. Their emotional response to the flag is the same as abolitionists felt in the 19th century. It’s why plagiarists like Doris Kearns Goodwin try so hard to make Lincoln into a Progressive Democrat.

It’s also why after half a century that we are still treated to JFK retrospectives around the anniversary of his death. Kennedy was an insignificant figure in American history, but he looms large in the Progressive imagination, even larger than FDR. The reason is he was “martyred” and then turned into a saint in the Cult of Modern Liberalism. The real JFK would have been revolted by modern liberalism, but the mythological one is the Brigham Young of the faith.

A strange little book I read a long time ago is The Man Who Folded Himself, by Star Trek writer David Gerrold. The premise is that the timeline can be folded on itself so that points separated by eons can appear to be moments apart. That’s the mind of the Progressive. Events of great emotional import are clustered together on their timeline in the near past. Everything else is scattered in the distant past, many beyond the event horizon.

The result of this folded timeline is a historical amnesia. It is, perhaps, a defense mechanism to deal with disconfirmations. When the prophesies do not come true, those events quickly recede into the distant past so the believer can maintain their faith. Think about how chronic gamblers never remember their loses, but remember every cent they won.

Those events that fit the narrative are always in their minds as if they just happened. Sometimes, they confuse the imaginary events like the Mathew Shepherd murder with real events. Just the other day a moonbat brought this case with me. When I pointed out that he was not, in fact, a victim of homophobia, the moonbat was incredulous. I had to provide proof and they were still insisting it could have happened.

Oddly, the Dark Ages are described as the period when the barbarians snuffed out the light of Rome. That’s not exactly true, but it is useful. What will we call the period when the fanatics turn out the lights on the past, disconnecting us from material reality? Maybe in  the future, our time will be known as the start of the Blind Ages.

Z man Explains the Flag Uproar. It’s not About race but Class. Those “typical” White Crackers.

 

The Cult at War

A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish,
And Priam and his people shall be slain.

I’ve always found the Third Punic War to be a deeply instructive period of Roman history, one that helps us understand much of the modern world. What allowed the Romans to survive and then dominate their neighbors was their implacability. They never quit fighting even when they were beaten. The only ways to gain peace with Rome were surrender or defeat. No matter how many times you beat Rome in the field, they would keep coming back until they figured out how to win.

I think the reason for this is explained in the Punic Wars, particularly the final chapter that ended with the sack of Carthage. Rome was more than a place and a people. Rome was an idea, an animating force that defined the people of the city. Being Roman was more than just about lineage or location. It was a way of life, the way of life for righteous people. To accept defeat or compromise would be to reject the essence of being Roman.

It’s this nascent nationalism that drove the Romans to keep fighting. It is what drove them to sack Carthage and later Corinth. It was impossible to be Rome if these cities existed as anything other than subjugated provinces of Rome. This implacability is what carried Rome through the third century crisis period. Even when maintaining the empire made no military or economic sense, they did it anyway. It was who they were. Keep in mind that in the third century, Rome was led by men from the Balkans known then as Illyricum.

If you were an enemy of Rome, you knew there could only be two outcomes. You could surrender and hope for good terms or you could fight and eventually lose. Sure, you could win some battles and have a good run of success, but the Romans would never stop coming. Eventually, they would gain the advantage and win. Just as important, Rome did not just extract rents from conquered people. They Romanized them. Rome was the first iteration of The Borg.

This comes to mind now that we are in yet another Confederate flag debate. The first one of these I recall clearly was in the 90’s, but I seem to recall the Cult in a snit over the flag in the 70’s when Southern Rock started using it in their stage shows. Regardless, the Cult tried to stamp it out in the 90’s, the 2000’s and now again in this decade. Ever since that lunatic shot up the church in South Carolina, the Cult has been buzzing about that stupid flag.

As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate, the only people who care about this flag are liberals and lunatics, the distinction between the two is impossible without professional training. The rest of us, a group professional demographers call normal people, simply don’t care. But, we live in a country run by a quasi-religious cult and they do care, so the rest of us have to care – or else. That’s how it works in a theocracy.

What’s instructive here is we see the same implacability on display as I described with the Romans. In the 70’s and 80’s, I used to see Rebel flags on sale at convenience stores – even in Boston. Now, only outcasts display them and the occasional red neck. Most red necks have decided it is not worth the hassle. But, the Cult is still determined to sack any city that flies the flag in any way shape or form. The Cult never quits and never settles. They declare peace only when they have won completely and permanently.

Of course, the flag is not really the issue. That’s why normal people are caught off-guard whenever the Cult starts waving it around and ululating like lunatics. The real issue is the long War Between the Whites that started in the 19th century and continues to this day. We call this the Civil War and that’s a good label, but I prefer my label, as it is more precise. Civil War implies both sides were equal or the same or viewed one another in that way. They never did and they still don’t.

In the 19th century, northern whites of mostly English ancestry used slavery as an excuse to attack and kill as a many Southern whites as possible. Those southern whites were of mostly Scots-Irish ancestry. The northern whites were ready to join their European coevals in the industrial, global age and they did not want those backward agrarian crackers holding them back. Slavery had to go and the people responsible for it had to be punished.

Abolitionists cared more about punishing southern whites after the war than the welfare of the freed slaves. The squabbling between northern lunatics and more reasonable minds over how to go about the post-war reconstruction is largely responsible for the failure of reconstruction to resolve the issue of freed slaves. That was left to the South to figure out on its own.

Like those Romans 2,000 years ago, the Cult never quits or accepts defeat. For 150 years northern whites have been trying to finally eliminate their eternal enemy. Over the decades the Cult evolved from an English Protestant thing into a full blown post-industrial theodicy. They still have a special hatred for southern whites, but they have expanded their field of vision to include what Obama called “typical white people.”

That’s what was missed when he made that comment. Everyone thought race, when Obama was thinking class. This is a guy raised by elites in elite culture. His grandparents were low-class compared to his coevals in prep school. They were typical Americans, which the Cult identifies as middle-class, white and embarrassing. While normal people in the South have no emotions about the rebel flag, it means everything to the Cult as it has always been, in their imagination, the flag of their enemy – core Americans.

If you follow the logic, so to speak, it makes perfect sense for the Cult to go on jihad against the rebel flag after the white guy shot up the black church. The Cult’s idealized image of the enemy is white, male, southern and poor. His flag is the Confederate flag. Therefore, the logical response to this shooting, from the perspective of the Cult, is the same as the Romans when Carthaginian traders ripped off Roman merchants. That’s a policy of the extirpation.

From Z BLog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

The Frenzy over a Flag. Beware of What Comes Next. Burning Books now, Men Later.

Congratulations! You Oppose The Confederate Flag. Now What?

We are slowly forgetting how to oppose something without seeking its utter destruction.

By Mollie Hemingway

June 23, 2015

The U.S. Civil War was a war that never should have been fought. Some 620,000 men died because slavery, an inhumane and evil practice, was permitted in many portions of this country. The South gets most of the blame for that, but the north benefited from the regime as well, even though it didn’t directly practice enslavement at the time of the war.

I used to think the war was a bit more complicated than I do now, having had my mind changed thanks to some relatively recent guided readings of President Abraham Lincoln. But long story short, the Confederacy was wrong. For whatever it’s worth, I have no nostalgia for the Confederacy and zero positive feelings for flags that reference the Confederacy, save the one painted on the General Lee or, perhaps, the one painted on RuPaul.

For some reason, 100% of media types (give or take) dealt with their feelings of anger and powerlessness in the aftermath of the racist murders of 9 black members of Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, by calling in unison for a removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol grounds. The flag was only put up during the centenary of the Civil War and a modified version was moved to a less conspicuous place about 15 years ago. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley called for its removal on Monday, as have many other politicians. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention called for its removal earlier. Sure, sounds good. Go for it. Even acknowledging that the relationship of the flag to the people of South Carolina is a bit more complicated than outsiders can understand, I think it’s fair to argue the negative outweighs any positive there.

A lot of the surrounding media-led outrage over the flag seems somewhat cold, given the horror of what last week brought. We had nine black people brutally murdered because they were black and sitting in a church with a history of fighting white supremacy. With all due deference to hatred for a Confederate flag on a pole at the statehouse, this seems like an almost childlike attempt to miss the seriousness of the situation. It’s as if they expect us to say, “Congratulations! You oppose the flag of an army that was defeated 150 years ago. We’re all very proud of you, journalists!” This generation seems to excel at inventing controversies, weighing in on those invented controversies, and then patting itself on the back for being so courageous and open-minded.

The far more frightening reality that such invented controversies avoid is that mankind is full of sin, and that some of us show that sinfulness in racism and murder. Or as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

The murderer of the Emanuel nine has done something particularly bad, but he isn’t the only person capable of evil out there. And getting rid of a flag is hardly the remedy for the racism and violence that infects our culture. How juvenile to think otherwise.

How we treat symbols we disagree with

Basically it’s just such a hysterical atmosphere at this point, that no one can conceive of a person who is against something but also willing to tolerate the expression of that thing. Can we be against Jeff Davis — and also against destroying art and monuments and history just because they involve Jeff Davis?

Symbols are tremendously important, and state sponsorship of symbols is very much worth fighting about. But there are ways to express disapproval of art, monuments and aspects of history without taking the approach of, say, blowing up the Buddhas, to take one recent example.

And how we manage these processes of disapproval truly is important for civil society.

To quote Heinrich Heine, a man who definitely knew of what he spoke, “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning men.”

Mobs aren’t actually the best judges of such processes, no matter how righteous they feel or certain of their cause.

Read the entire article at The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/23/congratulations-you-oppose-the-confederate-flag-now-what/

Black and Bitter

Bitter is the New Black

I saw this linked on Drudge the other day and it caught my eye because he labeled it “Millennials Are More Racist.” That struck me as at odds with my own experience so I got curious. Generation Snowflake is afraid of everything especially race.

It was in the section with the stories about the South Carolina shooting, which I would normally skip, as I’m not into race porn. This is the modern phenomenon where dandies from the leisure classes wallow in misery over some racist act, real or imagined, past or present, for the entertainment of others.

The link takes you to an essay by a woman named Karen Attiah. According to her resume posted on-line, she is a graduate of Northwestern and Columbia, receiving a bachelors in communications from the former and a human rights degree from the latter. Putting aside the fact that communications is a click less rigorous than a physical education degree, both schools are training centers for members of the elite and their attendants. Graduates of those schools wait on the movers and shakers in the cultural and political elite.

Further, it says she has killed time between schooling at elite organizations like the World Bank and Duke University. She is now starting a career in media at the Washington Post as a contract worker of some sort. Even though she is pushing 30 and has yet to settle into a paying career, she sports the type of credentials one sees these days in the managerial class. Life in America has been very good to Miss Attiah and promises to be much better, assuming she avoids costly errors in judgement.

Now, her article:

America should be shaken to its very core by what happened in Charleston.

The gruesome massacre of nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., may amount to the worst racially motivated terror attack of our generation and a deeply violent reminder that racism and white supremacy continue to course through America’s veins. One cannot help but draw comparisons to the firebombing of a black church in Birmingham, Ala., almost 52 years ago.

Shaken to its core? This is a particularly ghastly crime, shooting people in a church, but is it really so heinous that we have to question the very existence of our country?

One would expect that a graduate of elite colleges would know the word for something that happens every fifty years. That word is “rare.” In fact, “unusually rare” would be accurate. That’s opposed to something that happens every day, like black kids shooting innocent people of all races, but mostly other black people. That’s what we call “common.” So common, in fact, that hardly anyone bothers to notice.

The shooting suspect in Charleston has been identified as Dylann Roof, a white 21-year-old. He was arrested (peacefully, one should add) at a traffic stop. Many will argue about what words we will use to describe Roof, whether he should be described as a mentally disturbed kid (a description rarely applied when the alleged perpetrator isn’t a white male) or a rational adult responsible for his alleged actions. His age matters, but not for the reasons you may think.

Here’s where the bitterness shows its teeth. We see this with Obama, Holder, Jarrett, Lynch and the rest of the mulatto mafia in the White House. We see it all over the country. Blacks who have done spectacularly well, by any standard, in America run around bitter and resentful of the country that has raised them up to high status.

When Obama was born, the safe bet was to assume his mother had ruined her life and condemned her son to a life of despair. Instead, the culture changed so much and so fast that he rose rather easily to the ranks of the elite. Instead of being thankful, he is bitter.

We see it here with Miss Attiah. Her writing suggests she is qualified to cover high school softball games for the Podunk Free Press, not writing essays for the Washington Post. Given her resume and pictures on-line, it’s a safe bet that she is working the system with things other than her intellect. I don’t hold that against her, but she should be grateful she lives in a country where that is possible. In a post-racial meritocracy, she’s cleaning floors for a living.

Roof, who was born in 1994, violently shatters one particularly entrenched myth that society holds about racism — that today’s millennials are more tolerant than their parents, and that racism will magically die out as previous generations pass on. We think that millennials should be lauded for aspiring to be “colorblind.” There is the belief that tolerant young people will intermarry and create a post-racial, brown society and that it will be “beautiful.”

But the truth is that the kids are not all right when it comes to racial equality. Studies have shown that millennials are just about as racist as previous generations

I’m quoting this section in case you think I’m being unfair to Miss Attiah. Here we have one white lunatic out of tens of millions and his actions are treated as emblematic, despite being a glaring one-off. Even third rate minds can sort through this stuff. The numbers here contradict the point she is claiming. Again, things that are rare are things that don’t often occur. Miss Attiah appears to be confused by the words, “rare”, “few” “many” and “often.” How is that possible?

Of course, this sort of spaghetti-minded reasoning gets published because the editors at the Post don’t need the hassle of spiking a piece by one of the chosen people. If the editor is an old white guy and he sends this back pointing out the logical errors, his next meeting is with the human resources people to discuss his termination. So, Miss Attiah floats through life unmolested, writing nonsense others are too polite or too afraid to correct.

Way back in the olden thymes, one argument against affirmative action was that it diminished the work of those with real talent. A black guy who was smart and worked hard would look over at the black guys who got there on affirmative action and resent the people who allowed it. At the same time, blacks promoted into areas beyond their ability would resent it because they would live a life of frustration. At some level, Miss Attiah has always known she is in way over her head.

Those warnings turned out to have been prophetic. In modern America, blacks are close to being an object of worship. In another generation we will paint the Washington Monument black and make it a shrine. If you are a reasonably well behaved black person with anything on the ball, an army of white people is ready to carry you to the heights of society. Yet, those blacks on those litters resent the people carrying them and the country that permits it to happen.

Bitter is the new black.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

The Liberal’s Religion

The New Religion

The Rachel Dolezal story is hilarious for a boatload of reasons. There’s the obvious comparison to people who insist we pretend they are of another sex. If you can pretend to be the opposite sex, why not another race? More precisely, if sex is a social construct, then why is race not a social construct? Of course, for decades the war on white people has been based on the assertion that race is a social construct.

It used to be that we need not worry about such things. Biology was real and people accepted it. Those who did not were deemed mentally ill and treated accordingly. Rachel Dolezal was not fooling anyone, I suspect. People are not that stupid. They are that polite, however, and no one wants to get in a spat over race, even if it involves someone fraudulently using race to game the system. Elizabeth Warren pulled the same stunt and got away with it for the same reasons.

It’s fun to make sport of the internal contradictions, but it is even more fun to watch the Cult attack itself over something like this. Rachel Dolezal believes all the right things and has literally committed her life to them, but in doing so she has made a mockery of the one true faith. But, condemning someone for not being black enough sounds a lot like the paper bag test or the one drop rule.

Aside from the humor, it does reveal the basics of the New Religion, at least at this stage of its development. The New Religion is based on three principles: egalitarianism, multiculturalism and anti-racism.The order is important as the first two principles are the oldest and most important. Egalitarianism goes back to Rousseau and is at the root of all radical movements since the French Revolution.

If all men are the same, logically all cultures are the same. Multiculturalism is not logically possible without accepting egalitarianism. On the other hand, like Marxism, multiculturalism is a solution to the obvious problem that people will notice that not all cultures are the same and not all people seem to be equal. By ennobling the embrace of all cultures and condemning ethnocentrism, noticing becomes a defect in the noticer, rather than in the noticed.

If everyone is the same and no cultures are better than any other, inequity must be due to something other than biology and culture. Since white societies are the richest and most dominant, they must doing something to upset the natural order. That’s where anti-racism comes into the mix. The sin of racism is what allows whites in particular and white society in general, to rule over the rest of the world.

Therefore, white people of the New Religion jostle with one another for who can be the most ethno-masochist. The ultimate expression of that is to change ones race from white to black. We can all agree that Rachel Dolezal is nuts, but her choice here is not entirely irrational from the perspective of the true believer. Some white women marry black men, but she went even further and converted to blackness!

You see the same thing happening with trannies and homosexuals. In the mythology of the New Religion, women have been oppressed by white men almost as bad as blacks. This cult is, after all, a female cult. That makes white men the ultimate evil. How better to address that than proving maleness is a choice. If Bruce Jenner can choose to be female, then all of those terrible white men are choosing to be terrible white men.

All religions work backwards. By that I mean they begin with an endpoint and layout what must be done to reach that endpoint. For Christians, getting into heaven is about following certain rules and “living a Christian life.” For members of the New Religion, the goal is the earthly utopia where everyone lives in a paradise of equality. Therefore, the anointed are those who work to achieve it, through any means necessary.

Religions also always have a certain amount of hypocrisy and irrationality, too. They are human institutions, after all. The New Religion will ignore Elizabeth Warren’s trans-racialism because she is in the elite. Rachel Dolezal is just a provincial in flyover country. That means the good folks at NPR and the NYTimes can make sport of Rachel Dolezal, while celebrating Elizabet Warren.

It’s why cases like this will not have a lasting impact on the evolution of the New Religion. Hypocrisy, it turns out, is a great adaptation. It solves a lot of problems for human religion. Whether it is Catholic Bishops living like royalty while railing against earthly pleasures or Progressive pundits championing Bruce Jenner while condemning Rachel Dolezal, hypocrisy lets the faithful get past the internal contradictions and outright lunacy of their faith.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Baltimore’s Useless Blacks

The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name

The riots in Baltimore the other day were pretty mild by the standards of these things. The riots in the late sixties burned out big chunks of major cities, including Baltimore. This riot broke a few windows, mostly in neighborhoods that can’t get much worse. A few broken windows is not going to change much. The big damage was to the tourist trade as the news made it appear that the city was just sacked by the Goths. As a result conventions have been cancelled and who knows how many holiday plans have been altered in order to avoid the city.

The funny thing about these things is we have three narratives. There’s the one from the Cult of Modern Liberalism we get from just about everywhere in the media. That’s the one where the poor, dispossessed blacks have been brutalized by the Pale Penis People to the point where they revolt. Their peaceful protest against the PPP is turned into a riot by overzealous cops, the same cops who killed the poor innocent black body, this time named Freddy Gray.

The trouble with this narrative is it is never supported by the facts. In most of these cases, the truth makes the liberal narrative appear insultingly stupid. Michael Brown was a giant thug. The guy in New York was a career criminal. Freddy Gray appears to have died by accident. Of course, Baltimore is a black city run by blacks and it has a black police force. Whatever problems they have are not the fault of the blue-eyed devil.

Conservative Inc. swings into action with its own spin on things. This piece by Kevin Williamson is fairly typical of their role in the public drama. They point out that the people in charge are all members of the CML and have been following all of the favored policies of the Cult for generations. Their argument is that the riots and the squalor are the logical result of liberal policy making. Kevin’s article makes that case in the specific as well as the general, referencing other dilapidated cities.

The problem here is other cities have extremely liberal governments yet they manage to avoid the mayhem we see in Baltimore or Detroit. Kevin briefly mentions San Francisco, but prefers to focus on the black arrests rates, as if they are somehow unwarranted or out of line with black arrest rates nationwide. He’s ham-handedly trying to argue that the pasty-faced lefties running these cities are bigots. The fact that the Hispanics and Asians seem to be doing just fine in these places is conveniently avoided.

Then there’s the other narrative, the one no one dares say for fear of being labeled a monster. On the television you see young black males mugging for the cameras as they commit pointless acts of mayhem. You see blacks running from burning stores with arms full of goods. Of course, the liquor store is robbed and you see blacks carrying away the liquor and beer. These scenes are narrated by the same old voices saying the same old things. To spice it up, they interview a local, who mumbles through the interview, confirming everything you see on TV.

This, of course, is the simple reality of places like Baltimore, Detroit, East St. Louis and so on. When the government banned private discrimination in in the 1960’s, whites fled the cities to avoid having to send their kids to school with blacks. Responsible and intelligent blacks tried to keep it together, but they threw in the towel in the 80’s and 90’s when crack turned American cities into war zones. They headed for the suburbs to live with the whites. What’s left in these urban reservations are low-IQ violent nitwits.

Of course, no one is allowed to say any of this in public. Racial solidarity requires blacks, who know better, to defend their dimwitted brothers rioting in the streets. Liberal whites think there’s profit in the riots so they cast about for a black hat on whom to pin the blame. Crime thinkers like John Derbyshire believe that the truth of things will eventually will out. I think John is right that reality will always win eventually, but I know I’ll never live to see it. Everyone alive today is too deeply invested in the myth that if we just turn the right knobs and push the right buttons, biology will be overcome. Fantasy is powerful stuff.

The fantasists may be onto something though. Baltimore has about 200,000 people that are useless. The males just want to commit crimes, get high and screw. The females just want to get high and screw. The city would love to ship them off somewhere, but somewhere does not want them either. John Derbyshire’s dream of race realism is not going to change the fact we have a lot of useless people and nowhere to send them.

Maybe we’re better off leaving reality as the hate that dare not speaks its name. The fantasy keeps everyone committed to papering over reality and doubling down after each failure. Ferguson will fade away and those people will go back to doing what they were doing before they got famous. Baltimore will go back to being Baltimore. The dogs will bark and the caravan will move on.

From Z Man: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Really? Then White People Deserve their Safe Places without Minorities.

Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

 Last week The Ryersonian reported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students’ Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate — a lot of the criticism is valid.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

The organizers of the event, the Racialized Students’ Collective, should have done a better job of labelling this event as a safe space on the Ryerson Students’ Union online calendar. They should label safe spaces clearly and maybe even host events that educate the public on what they mean. Doing so will help the public and the media have a better understanding of the purpose and value of these spaces.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.

It’s not just important, but it’s essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson’s student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

Earlier in the week a newsroom colleague and I went to an ad-hoc committee meeting on sexual assault policy. When we arrived we were told it was a safe space, and that we would not be able to report on anything that would be discussed in the meeting.

We understood the value of these sorts of events, where people can share their common struggles. Our understanding let us attend and contribute to the conversation, even if we couldn’t report about it.
We understood the people there had a right to privacy. They had a right to collectively work through the challenges society had imposed on them. They had a right to claim parts of the campus, parts of the world, for a few hours in hopes of creating broader social change.

The two students who tried to enter the RSC meeting said that they were embarrassed when they were asked to leave and that the group was being counterproductive in sectioning themselves off. Similarly, some of the comments on the piece written about these students speaks to the idea that excluding certain people from these events, this dialogue, is encouraging racial tension. Their embarrassment isn’t as important as the other issues involved here.

Segregation was imposed on people of colour by people of privilege, not the other way around. The very fact that individuals organizing to help each other get through social barriers and injustices are being attacked and questioned for their peaceful assembly is proof that they were right to exclude those students.

Racialized people experience systemic discrimination on a daily basis, on many levels, and in ways that white people may never encounter. The whole point of these safe spaces is to remove that power dynamic. That’s partly what makes them spaces for healing.

The presence of any kind of privilege puts unnecessary pressure on the people of colour to defend any anger or frustrations they have, to fear the outcome of sharing their stories. The attendees are trying to move forward by supporting each other and they should not have to defend themselves, they should not fear the consequences of raising their voices.

Instead of focusing on why those students were asked to leave, we should be thinking about the history of oppression that makes these kinds of groups and these kinds of places so very important. We should be focusing on how to be aware and respectful of the rights of both the press and marginalized groups. We have to find a way to coexist peacefully.

The West has a history of oppressing people of colour: from Africans who were enslaved and brought to the New World, to native people whose land was stolen by Europeans. This kind of oppression is still witnessed today, in the way the black community is treated in the United States, in the state of African nations trying to recover from the collapse of the previous colonial rule, and in the continuing struggles of indigenous peoples.

White people may experience occasional and unacceptable prejudice, but not racism. They do not experience the systemic racism that makes it hard for them to find jobs, housing, health care and justice in the legal system.

Racism is not personal, it is structural. Unlike the arena of mainstream media, the educational system, religious institutions and judicial systems that reinforce hurtful stereotypes, these spaces remind the oppressed that they are human, that they deserve respect.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/aeman-ansari/ethnic-safe-spaces_b_6897176.html?

Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/

Only Whites Can Be Racists…and Other Bullshit that Liberals Believe

 

 

Nonwhites Can’t Be Racist Cuz My Teacher Told Me So

by Jim Goad

March 09, 2015

Although it was released over three years ago, there were audible sounds of indigestion online recently at the discovery of a textbook called Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. The book is intended for all students of high school age and above. From a cursory glance of the book’s advertising materials, it appears to be roughly as full of shit as its title would imply.

At issue recently was this specific passage:

There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression). While women can be just as prejudiced as men, women cannot be “just as sexist as men” because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.

Some would agree that there is indeed no such thing as “reverse racism,” but they’d argue so for different reasons than the authors. They’d say racism is racism no matter who’s practicing it. Unlike the authors of Is Everyone Really Equal?, at least they’re being consistent.

But sensible citizens such as you and I realize that the voodoo term “racism” is purely a social construct and thus has no innate meaning. That’s why different groups are always fighting one another to define it. The ability to define words is the root of cultural power. In my lifetime, the word’s definition has expanded with the ravenousness of a malignant tumor. Nowadays, everything white is racist. Even pointing that out is racist. And it’s racist of me for making fun of the fact that pointing this out is racist. And every word I keep saying from hereon out merely compounds the racism.

“The ability to define words is the root of cultural power.”

Will this tired conga beat never end? “Nonwhites cannot be racist” is a transparently nonsensical statement. It’s a freeze-dried and vacuum-sealed bag of pure bullshit, one of those innately fraudulent Newspeak mantras that bother me more every time I hear them—you know, obvious lies such as “alcoholism is a disease,” “rape has nothing to do with sex,” and “race doesn’t exist, but racism is rampant.” It’s an idea that makes no sense, which may be why its proponents feel compelled to constantly hammer you in the head with it until you finally relent merely because your head hurts.

More importantly, it’s a blatant act of moving the goalposts. It’s an attempt to redefine the term “racism” in a way that effectively silences whites and cripples their ability to address the topic with any level of meaning, honesty, or emotion.

Read it all at Taki Mag:

http://takimag.com/article/nonwhites_cant_be_racist_cuz_my_teacher_told_me_so_jim_goad/print#ixzz3U5KVPyvs

Obama’s Selma Speech. More of the same Marxist Propaganda spewing out of a filthy fountain.

Obama’s Unscrupulous Selma Speech

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obamas_unscrupulous_selma_speech.html#ixzz3TzKJXvWj

Civil Rights: The Only Thing Still Marching on is White Guilt

Selma to Ferguson, Ferguson to Selma: What Happened After the Reporters Left

The real story of Selma, Alabama isn’t what Hollywood put on the screen. It’s about what happened after theprotesters got what they wanted and the reporters left.

Selma is back in the news because of the eponymous film, very looselybased on Martin Luther King’s 1965voting rights marches, the latest installment in the burgeoning cinematic genre of “hate porn.” It just bombed at the Golden Globes, prompting the usual charges of racism. [‘Selma didn’t win much at the Golden Globes. Are politics to blame? By Nia-Malika Henderson,Washington Post, January 12, 2015]. As Rachel Maddow impersonatorChristopher Hayes put it,
But Hollywood has a bigger problem if it wants to continue its reliance on anti-white agitprop. Curiously, while most Hollywood blockbusters rely on the foreign market to bring in the bulk of the gross receipts, hate porn is almost entirely dependent on the American market. To look at some examples:

  • 2011’s The Help made 78 percent of its lifetime gross ($216 million) in the domestic market.
  • 2012’s Red Tails was a box office bomb, grossing only $50 million worldwide, with an astonishing 99 percent of the share coming from the domestic market. A paltry $489,000 was grossed in the worldwide market
  • 2013’s The Butler made 66 percent of its lifetimes gross ($176 million) in the domestic market.

One exception: 2013’s 12 Years a Slave, which despite massive marketing and industry backing made only 30 percent of its worldwide gross ($187 million) from the American market. This may indicate a law of diminishing returns in the American market, as audiences weary of what is essentially the same movie over and over again.

Still, the film industry seems determined to double down on hate porn. Selma was produced by Brad Pitt and Oprah Winfrey for an estimated $20 million [Oprah Winfrey Joins Brad Pitt as Producer of MLK Drama ‘Selma,’ by Lucas Shaw, The Wrap, January 19, 2014]. It was directed by black female director Ava DuVernay, a diversity twofer duly celebrated by the Main Stream Media [Making History,by Manohla Dargis, New York Times, December 3, 2014]. But Selmaonly opened to just over $11 million, managing to lose to Liam Neeson once again losing his family in Taken 3. [Selma’ Movie Opening Weekend Bested by ‘Taken 3’ Despite Critical Acclaim, by Aaron Morrison, International Business Times, January 12, 2015]

Of course, it’s not really about making money. It’s about imposing apermanent sense of white guilt of the historic American nation. And those older whites who may be tainted by “prejudice and racism” “just have to die,” to use Oprah’s notorious words. [Oprah: Racists Have to Die for Racism to End, by Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters, November 15, 2013] The object: to train young whites to willfully ignore racial reality and not “read, say, or think” anything PC, to use John Derbyshire’s phrase.

But both American blacks and whites will eventually have to face the consequences of what happened in Selma after the reporters left. Just as Birmingham, Alabama became a failed city after theachieving of black political power, so is present day Selma a reminder that Hollywood’s history seldom resembles the real thing.

Selma in 1965 was roughly half-white and half-black. But in the years since King’s march, the white population has declined by roughly 10,000 people and the city lost 30 percent of its total population [As ‘Selma’ wow Hollywood critics, white flight and poverty haunt Selma, by Jeremy Gray, AL.com, January 7, 2015] Today, the 80% black city is a ruin.

According to Public School Review, Selma High School and its 982 students is almost entirely black. Some 80 percent of students get a free lunch.

As recent as twenty years ago, there was still a small white population. However, Southern Changes magazine complained,

The student body has been majority African American since 1975, four years after integration. Currently, more than eighty percent of the students are black. Until very recently, the school had never been governed by a school board with a black majority. In all of the years since integration, there has been one black valedictorian and one black salutatorian.

[Selma: What Has Changed?, Southern Changes Volume 12, Number 4, 1991]

They and other “diversity campaigners” got what they wanted. In 2000, majority-black Selma finally elected its first black mayor, James Perkins Jr. This event was heralded as the “biggest news to hit Selma since slavery fell”:

“His victory gives many people a sign of hope, not just in Selma, but in Alabama and the rest of the world,” says the Rev. Frederick Douglas “F.D.”

Reese, Perkins’s pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church. “Selma, as I see it, has been chosen to be … a beacon of a brighter tomorrow.”

[Selma steps away from its troubled past, by Robin Demonia,Christian Science Monitor, October 2, 200]

But how did that play out? Under the “brighter tomorrow” of Third World leadership, Selma couldn’t even maintain a movie theater. The “Walton Theater,” once a famous landmark that hosted “talking pictures” as far back as 1932 and amateur talent shows, was eventually closed because there were no private investors to back the project, even after heavy investment by the city government.

Saturday marked the end of an era at the Walton Theater.

After two years of operation, the Jackson family showed its last movie Saturday — “A Madea Christmas.”

Sharon and David Jackson decided to end management of the city-owned facility after the Selma City Council’s Public Building’s Committee decided not to approve a transition proposal or present a counter offer…

The Walton Theater originally opened in 1914… In the 1970s, the theater fell into a state of disrepair and was closed.

Selmians helped to raise more than $1 million to reopen the theater. It reopened in May 1985 after five years of planning and construction, spearheaded by local residents Larry Striplin and Anita Bryant.

The theater stopped showing feature films in the 1990s.

In October 2011 David and Sharon Jackson partnered with the City of Selma to reopen the Walton as a first-run movie theater. The city helped by purchasing new state-of-the-art digital and sound systems. The first film shown in the Jackson’s Walton Theater was “Mission Impossible IV,” according to the theater’s website.

[Movies come to a close at Selma’s Walton Theater, by Josh Bergeron, Selma Times Journal, December 21, 2013]

Naturally, this led to an awkward situation when it came time to screen Selma in the town that inspired the movie. The Walton Theater was reopened just for the movie. Once the show is over, a ruined city where more than 40 percent of the people live in poverty will remain. [Fear and joy as Alabama town readies for screenings of film ‘Selma,’ by Jonathan Kaminsky, Reuters, January 3, 2015]

And this serves as a metaphor for whole sad story of Selma. Oprah Winfrey and Hollywood will continue to roll out Civil Rights pornography, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will continue their extortion rackets, and the great passion plays of the Civil Rights Movement will be re-enacted again and again. Whites will be called racist for leaving black run cities, and if they don’t flee, they will becalled racist for staying.

The Civil Rights Movement got exactly what it wanted. Its leading figures, like Martin Luther King Jr., have been enshrined as American saints. Black power reigns in what were some of the leading cities of the Old Confederacy.

But formerly First World cities like Selma, Birmingham, and Detroit will still be Third World slums, no matter how many Hollywood movies are made about the evils of Whites. And no amount of white guilt will comfort those who have to live in the ruins.

Like Shelley’s Ozymandias, of the colossus that was the American Civil Rights Movement, nothing beside remains.

Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface andEscape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.

From V-Dare: http://www.vdare.com/articles/selma-to-ferguson-ferguson-to-selma-what-happened-after-the-reporters-left

This is What Really Happens when The White People leave and Blacks Take Over

What is it they want? The Only Article You’ll Ever Need to Read about now 80 percent black Selma…

It’s a black city. As the Washington Post notes about 80 percent black Selma in 2015, a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a re-opening Sonic restaurant is cause for celebration in a city where the Visible Black Hand of Economic has otherwise chased away commercial interests:

80 percent black Selma: can they keep a Sonic open?

…a ribbon-cutting at the local Sonic drive-up restaurant. In the past few months, Selma has lost two of its biggest department stores: J.C. Penney and Goody’s. The restaurant event offered a rare bit of good economic news.

“Technically it’s more of a reopening than an opening,” KimbroughBallard said. “The place looked terrible. Thank God Sonic saw fit to invest thousands of dollars in it instead of picking up and leaving.” The restaurant was festooned with balloons and a big red ribbon.

Today, almost all the top elected officials in Selma and surrounding Dallas County are black. Ballard, who is white, stood next to Mayor George Evans, who was elected in 2008 as the second black mayor in Selma’s history. Also in the ribbon-cutting line was Benny Lee Tucker, a City Council member and one of the heroes of the Bloody Sunday march. The mayor snipped the ribbon, and a Sonic regional marketing executive handed out raspberry and lime sodas.

It should be noted this is the second time since 2009 the Sonic in Selma has re-opened (in 2009, the Selma Times-Journal reported there were 533 job applications to work there), with the building torn down in late 2014 for the latest incarnation of the outpost for civilization in the heart of darkness that is 80 percent black Selma.

It’s a black city, dominated by black elected officials and a government seemingly run for black people, of the black people, and by black people. Yet businesses continue to flee across the famed Edmund Pettus Bridge, which attracts a few out-of-towners every March to walk across it like an American version of Hajj.

A holy pilgrimage to bathe in the eternal waters of white guilt pumped continuously by images of “Bloody Sunday” from Selma in 1965…

One day those waters will stop flowing.

Perhaps it will be the day when the celebrated Sonic closes, another business fleeing 80 percent Selma…

Or, perhaps one day it will become illegal for a business to close up shop in 80 percent Selma… [Selma, 50 years after march, remains a city divided, Los Angeles Time, 3-6-15]:

“Some people have a need to not be satisfied,” said Jamie Wallace, who in 1965 was an editor at the Selma Times-Journal. He stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge with civil right marchers when they were attacked on Bloody Sunday. He and other newspaper staffers resisted enormous pressure from advertisers, subscribers and the Selma elite to ignore the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the marchers.

This weekend, he will be presented a Living Legend Award by Selma’s mayor, a black man. Things were bad in 1965, Wallace said. They are still bad.

“But I dispute anyone who claims we didn’t change anything,” he said. “We went from an all-white power structure to all black. That means something.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson sat nearby on a wicker sofa, watching Sanders and her volunteers work. “People coming to Selma in a celebration mood should be in a protest mood,” he said. Sanders agreed.

“Sixty percent of Selma’s children live in poverty,” she told him. Jackson nodded.

“People assume there is a correlation between political power and economic power,” he said. But a black power structure — mayor, city council, police force — is not enough.

“You change the political power, and the white business owners just move outside the city. So you have power over a doughnut hole. We need help to climb out of the doughnut hole,” he said.

He went on to describe a plan in which the government would intervene to stop people from relocating their businesses. “It’s the only way,” Jackson said.

A black power structure is Selma, an 80 percent black city, has represented the equivalent of an EMP-blast over the city only allowing one or two days of outside coverage of the city to exist: those days happen to correspond with the anniversary of the famed march across the bridge in 1965; what happens in the city when blacks are in charge the other 364 days of the years means absolutely nothing, unless it can be used to transmit a message of continued white oppression and persecution of defenseless, powerless blacks.

But blacks have all the power in Selma, and the city lights are going out. One wonders if there is even a working public water fountain in the 80 percent black city of Selma in 2015, obviously knowing that when the city was controlled by evil whites in 1965, at least a “colored” water fountain worked…

So now the black power structure wants to consider putting in place a plan to prevent individuals from closing the doors of their privately-held businesses, if they plan to relocate them outside the 80 percent black city of Selma…

After 38 years of being in business, J.C. Penny left the Selma Mall in early January of 2015; of the 33  J.C. Penny locations in Alabama, it was the only one to close… the closing was part of “a strategic priority to improve the profitability of our stores and position J. C. Penney for future success”:

“Wow, that’s a surprise. It’s like one of the two anchor stores for the mall and Belk is the other,” said Mary Johnson, who was shopping at J. C. Penney on Wednesday. “With one of the anchors gone, I don’t know how the mall can stay open.”

The 80 percent black population of Selma, the historic American city birthing the ‘March Across the Pettus Bridge” (an event more important to the American narrative than Washington Crossing the Delaware), no longer has the ability to sustain a J.C. Penny…

An editorial in the Selma Times-Journal bemoaned the closing of stores in 80 percent black Selma, without noting how these stores are no longer capable of producing the profits required to keep them open; a true testament to the type of community and social capital black people create (hey, Sonic has had to have grand re-openings TWICE in the past six years in Selma…). [Selma Mall can still succeed, even after closure of Goody’s and J.C. Penney, Selma Times-Journal, 3-3-15]:

Like J.C. Penney in 2014, Goody’s is closing its location at the Selma Mall at the end of March.

At this point, it’s not clear what the mall’s future plans are when it comes to attracting new businesses to replace the vacant buildings left by the major retailers that once called it home.

The closings are crippling to a city whose leaders echo the message “Shop local” at every given opportunity. Leaders in Selma understand how important it is that those in Selma try to shop here first, creating extra tax dollars and more opportunities for growth within the city.

That’s why it’s so disheartening when stores the caliber and size of Goody’s and J.C. Penney close in Selma. That’s not to say that lack of support is the reason the stores closed. Business could always be better, but J.C. Penney closed dozens of stores as part of company wide decision and Goody’s has not made any formal announcement about its reasoning from the corporate level.

Selma needs its mall to succeed, which is why the next few months are so important. We’re optimistic that the mall can be a vibrant shopping center with options for shoppers for all ages, but it’s going to take some work. Whatever the mall’s future holds, it will need the investment of the community in order to succeed.

80 percent black Selma doesn’t have the population capable of keeping J.C. Penny or Goody’s open; it does, however, have an 80 percent black population capable of requiring Sonic to close twice in six years for grand re-openings…
The Visible Black Hand of Economics has struck the city of 80 percent black Selma.

Again, blacks secure control of the city of Selma, and yet no one wants to be there save a few politicians and white journalists every March when the annual pilgrimage to this religious icon commences…

Selma is 80 percent black; by 2020, the city will likely be 90 percent black.

They control the city’s present and will determine it’s future, free of white people obstructing individual black people’s collective drive… and yet the city celebrates the opening of a Sonic as if its a favored son returning from war a great hero.

Selma.

The perfect embodiment of what individual black potential collectively manifests in America

From http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-it-they-want-only-article-youll.html

Diversity? It Ain’t Gonna FLy

The Birth of Three Nations

Diversity: Koom. Bah. Humbug

From Fred on Everything

Regarding the unsurprising slaughter in Paris:

Diversity is a disaster. Why people cannot see this is a mystery. A country can ignore an unfortunate reality, but it cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring it. Why governments allow and even encourage immigration of incompatible populations is a greater mystery. Few things cause more misery, hatred, death, and destruction than does diversity. One may wish it were not so, but it is so.

Diversity. It offers to divide America into three countries, self-aware and, may God preserve us, mutually hostile. We can talk forever about what ought to be. We can leap from a tall building, insisting that we are birds. Yet we live in what is. We are not birds. Reality eventually takes hold. Aye, there’s the rub.

Distaste for diversity of almost any kind runs through societies. Liberals associate chiefly with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, military people with military people, the rich with the rich, the highly intelligent with the highly intelligent, the young with the young. We may tolerate others if the distinctions are not too great, or if we are not forced into excessive contact. For example, while the Chinese in America are superficially very different from Euro-Americans, they are quiet, courteous, law-abiding, and studious, so little antagonism occurs. But the potential is there, as when they greatly outperform whites academically.

As a species we do not like diversity, though we may think that we should. People want to be with others like themselves. Difference breeds suspicion, friction arises,and the depraved or disagreeable nature of the other group is blamed.

Read the entire article here:    http://fredoneverything.net/Diversity2.shtml

 

Liberals bashing White people again

MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER

Simply observe all the below links from Memeorandum and you will see examples of the ever popular liberal sport of bashing white people, especially white males. What is even more amazing is that if you read many of these stories, they are written by white liberals, many of them men. White liberals who wish they were black but since they cannot change their skin color they self flagellate so they can pretend to identify with the poor, deserving, constantly overlooked blacks in whatever area of society under discussion at the moment. In this case it is the world of Hollywood but it applies to every situation that arises. Notable is that here is  Shakedown Sharpton, reining king of racism, interjecting himself into the mix, even comparing this to, OMG! – Ferguson! Overlooking a black film is the same as killing people? Compared to what is going on out in the real world, Sharpton wants to compare a bunch of narcissistic, egotistic, greedy Hollywood types getting together and patting themselves on the back by handing out meaningless awards to themselves to Ferguson? One headline screams that the Oscars are heading in the wrong direction? What direction should they be going in? An all black, lesbo, gay, transgendered, bisexual, I-don’t-know-what-the-hell-I-am-but-I-know-I-deserve-special-treatment direction? Would that make the liberal morons happy? Talk about an alternative lifestyle – these people all live in an alternative universe that exists only in their deluded minds. The movie “Selma” was snubbed. As the late great Andrew Breitbart would say, So fucking what.  ZTW

 

Tatiana Siegel / Hollywood Reporter:
Oscars: Acting Nominees All White

Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask